As the others have already pointed out, German is often analyzed as being a V2 language. However, there are reasons why some grammarians analyze it as an OV language. The main reason is that in infinite clauses, German has OV order:
ein Bild sehen
einen Baum pflanzen
ein Lied singen
A VO language like English has the exact opposite order:
to see a picture
I agree with Hubert Schölnast and HalvarF but I'd like to add something that hasn't been mentioned yet:
As long as the V2 rule is followed, you can put the pieces of a sentence in almost any order you like. There are, however a few exceptions:
• The accusative object and the predicative go after the subject if they can't be told apart otherwise.
• The first ...
In main clauses, German uses V2 (the verb is on second position), and that means VO most of the time.
German (V2 -> VO): Julia ruft den Hund.
English (VO): Julia calls the dog.
Latin (OV): Iulia canem vocat.
However, thanks to the declined articles and cases that German has, it is more flexible, and you can use a different word order to emphasize parts ...
English is a SVO language.
SVO means: Subject, Verb, Object(s) in exactly this order.
But English is the only Germanic language with this word order. German and all other Germanic languages (Dutch, Afrikaans, Yiddish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and many others) are V2 languages.
V2 means: Verb at position 2.
SVO is a more strict subtype of V2.
In German the ...
Note that "um ... zu" in German has a much stronger notion of purpose than the infinitive in English. You don't look for someone for the purpose of meeting him - but rather you look for someone to meet him.
Thus, you would typically rather use a relative clause like in
Ich suche jemanden, mit dem ich mich treffen kann, um gemeinsam Deutsch zu üben....
Yes, you can chain up multiple um-zu clauses without a problem. Obviously, it's not as short and elegant as in English though. You're repeating um and zu, which can make it sound a bit clumsy. It might be better style to avoid this, but there's no grammatical problem with it.
About your translation: you decided to make "jemanden" an object of "...
Normal participle clauses
German participle clauses work pretty much the same way as in English, which is not surprising since the two languages are closely related.
So the participle clauses you were not sure about can be easily translated into German participle clauses:
Besorgt über die Neuigkeiten rief sie das Spital an. (Worried by the news, she called ...
Here are some translations that are close to the original.
"Worried by the news, she called the hospital."
"(Von den Nachrichten) besorgt rief sie im Krankenhaus an." or "Besorgt (durch die Nachrichten) rief sie im Krankenhaus an."
Although, if somebody told her the news personally, you would probably leave out the parts in the ...
I, as a native speaker, would say that the explanation in your book is roughly correct. By postioning the these words at different places, you can stress different things, as already has been pointed out. (I cannot upvote answers yet.)
However, let me also add that this combination of "ja" and "doch" right after another is a bit 'overkill'...
Words like «ja», «doch» used as in these example sentences are called modal particles. They serve a double function:
First, German modal particles add a nuance to the meaning of the entire sentence, reflecting “the mood or the attitude of the speaker or the narrator”. (Very roughly speaking, the modal particle «ja» adds a notion that what the sentence says ...
Better you don't try to copy grammatical features from one language to another. Better you try to learn to use a new language like native speakers. No German native speaker has English Grammar in their mind when they produce German sentences.
The two German sentences in your questions are correct, but unusual. German native speakers normally don't use such ...
Both orders are possible, but more context would be needed for a decision, which one fits better.
The first one is the more universal one. It could mean but at least two cellists chose that hotel anyway (doch meaning anyway) or express a mild surprise of the narrator, that they did so.
In the second order doch has a meaning more close to despite: the hotel ...
Bei dem Satz handelt es sich um eine im Deutschen üblich zu findene Abkürzung, wenn zwei Sätze das gleiche Hilfsverb haben:
[...] was einen Herkunftsnachweis wertlos machen kann und damit diese Funktion der gefährden kann.
Der zweite Teil des Satzes ist falsch. Vermutlich wurde nur ein Wort vergessen:
[...] und damit diese Funktion der Ringe gefährden ...